Jonathan Cohen

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It would be beneficial to you if you would read and at least attempt to understand the works of others, rather than criticize them off-the-cuff. This is CT 101 stuff.

And it would be beneficial for you to stop implying that people haven't read "the works of others" when you personally have no clue whatsoever what anybody here has done.

2 hours ago, Donald Willis said:

I don't know if Jack White posted here or not.  But in 1998, he and I exchanged posts on alt.conspiracy.jfk re witnesses who were reluctant to come forward for fear of their lives.  (Shades of Howard Brennan.)  One witness, whom he called Beta, "was ordered by the Secret Service to destroy and fabricate evidence", and he stipulated that tapes of his confession not be made public until he died.  25 years on... does anyone here know of any follow-up to Mr. White's post?

Jack White did post here, but sadly it was almost 100% nonsense fueled by his terrible photo analysis and belief in every possible conspiratorial angle in this case. It seems pretty convenient to claim you have knowledge of a witness being made to destroy evidence but couch it in "well, I can't say anything else until 25 years after the witness dies" ...

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Despite pushback from WC fans, this forum's Sandy Larsen some years ago proved that Postal Money Orders were required to have bank endorsements according to 1963 Postal regulations.  But, of course, none were present on the apparently undeposited, uncashed money order.

Not only has he proved absolutely nothing of the kind, his work has been taken apart once again right here on this forum within the past several weeks.

57 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

I therefore resign this forum in protest. I do not wish for my account to be deleted so that what few posts I have made will be left up for posterity. I'll see some of you over at Jacks (and thanks Greg for the defense above, much appreciated). 

Miles, I wish you wouldn't leave, but I don't blame you one bit. Serious question: is there a means by which a moderator can be replaced?

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

- Oswald didn't own a rifle. The Carcano was part of the cover up.

- Oswald was never in Mexico City. The CIA plotters used that to place the blame of the assassination on the Cubans and Russians. The so-called Oswald who visited the Cuban Consulate was a CIA-employed impersonator. You should read the Lopez Report and Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1 / Phase 2 analysis to understand the Mexico City incident.

- How do you know the package didn't contain curtain rods? I just assumed it did... no reason to think otherwise.

-Those aren't photos of Oswald with the rifle, pistol, and newspapers. Obvious fakes.

- I don't know if he lied about Neely Street. Why would he lie about living somewhere? Maybe it was a safe house. If so, then yeah, I could see him lying about that.

You are truly hopeless.

29 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What lying are you talking about? I don't recall seeing any Oswald lies when I read the interrogation reports.

Well, let's see. For starters, he lied about:

- owning a rifle

- being in Mexico City

- telling Wesley Frazier that his package contained curtain rods

- the backyard photographs taken at Neely Street

- living at Neely Street

13 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

It actually has a great deal to do with AWIK, if you're paying attention, or if you know your material.  I'll let you figure it out.

There's nothing to figure out, your attempts to change the subject notwithstanding.

Is there a reason you are writing full posts in bold?

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

You're saying that with a straight face on a thread dedicated to a book that alleges Jerrie Cobb The Pilot, dressed as "Babushka Lady" shot President Kennedy with a pistol hidden inside a camera; and that said Jerrie ALSO piloted Life reporters to, or was it from, Dallas? Or did she fly Oswald out of RedBird?  

Huh? My previous comment to you was about the alleged datebook which forms the basis for "Coup in Dallas." It had absolutely nothing to do with Haverstick's book or thesis.

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

What do you not understand about the legal term, "private property"? Are you familiar with the phrase "terms and conditions apply"? Are you aware that journalists have a right to protect their sources and relevant material? 

I suspect you would not attempt this charade were Albarelli here. 

I'm not "attempting" any kind of "charade." Just merely pointing out, for the umpteenth time, that there is no means by which researchers can examine the "physical document." Thus, your claims about it are completely unverified and are rightfully treated as such.

3 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

... and yet dismissed Coup out hand when we have a physical document to substantiate our findings ...

A physical document that nobody can examine for themselves ...

On 1/1/2024 at 9:47 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

I've never understand Greg Doudna. He has a following, and I've never understood that.

Almost everything Greg believes is the polar opposite of what I believe. Given that, and the fact that his posts tend to be soooooooooo long, I rarely read what he has to say.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about him. He's one of those researchers who is wrong about so many things that he'll never figure the assassination out. IMO.

Uh-huh... so, because Greg doesn't believe in nonsense such as "Harvey and Lee" and massive fakery of the assassination photo record, and because he writes long posts, you have simply thrown up your hands and declared "that he'll never figure the assassination out" ? Gee, what a thoughtful, logical and reasoned response...

1 hour ago, Donald Willis said:

I should add that Armstrong's article is beautifully reasoned, as far as it goes, which wasn't quite far enough...

And thank you for debunking it!

5 minutes ago, John Kowalski said:

I agree. The story been told in her book is the same as the one told in John Armstrong's book Harvey and Lee.

So in other words, it's also complete and utter nonsense.

11 minutes ago, Robert Burrows said:

Albert Einstein thought it was a mistake too...

Uh-huh. Noted Middle East policy expert Albert Einstein. Thank goodness he weighed in on the conflict!

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jonathan:

I cannot understand your reliance on Occam's Razor, because to proclaim  that you have to array all the facts in evidence.

1. The DPD spent the better part of two days rummaging through the Paine home, which was rather small. But they missed this note allegedly inside a book. And the note was in Russian?

2. Why was it so necessary for Ruth to convey the book, which was called Book of Helpful Instructions.  She said it was because Marina used it each day. Oh really, while she was in detention and under 24 hour watch by the FBI and Secret Service?

3. The note was not dated and did not have Oswald's latent fingerprints on it.  Even though it took up almost one side of the paper. In fact, seven prints were on it, but none matched Lee or Marina.

4. The Secret Service returned the note to Ruth because they thought she wrote it. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, pp. 200-03)

None of these points require conspiratorial intent on Ruth's part or mean that she engaged in any such behavior.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In retrospect, it was an enormous mistake for the British to mandate a Jewish state in a largely Muslim territory without the blessings of the Palestinian people.

This is one of the most preposterous statements I've ever read on this forum. Where would you have liked the British to plop Israel down instead? The middle of the ocean?

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

LOL, double-downing on your pettifoggery. Good job!

And you, double-downing on your fancy new, meaningless term. There are perfectly logical and acceptable explanations for this particular piece of evidence. You just refuse to accept them because you conveniently wave off and dismiss any innocent rationale for Ruth Paine's behavior.

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The key phrase I used, which you apparently missed, is "things like this."

I didn't "miss" anything. Everything I said is valid about your beliefs.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The Palestinians would have never become refugees in such mass numbers if their leaders had not treacherously rejected the UN partition plan and invited Arab armies to attack the Jews. 

I don't agree with Michael Griffith on much of anything other than his critiques of Fletcher Prouty, but the above is a hugely important point rarely mentioned in current discourse on this subject.

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Since I don't believe that things like this don't happen by chance, I believe that someone was directed to put that note in the book, and that someone was directed to "accidentally" find it.

This is not how real research is conducted, on this or any other subject. You don't just decide that you "don't believe" in coincidence or Occam's razor, which is certainly the explanation for any bogus anomalies you are raising about the Oswald note in question.

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

To claim that the film contains evidence of conspiracy and was altered to remove evidence of conspiracy really is a very silly claim.

As always, words of wisdom from Jeremy. There was no significant alteration to the film beyond the known damaged frames.

3 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Without being an agent/informer for the FBI, Oswald could have been a source of information for the FBI. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that the FBI has sources at street level that provide information, correct?

Yes, also possible. I personally have not seen evidence to support tit.

38 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Ok, then let's explore the usage of that term. "Anti-Subversive" is pretty specific. If Marguerite did not fabricate that term, do you concede that the term may have been sourced from Lee, even if he himself was not an agent of some kind, and what he conveyed to his mother was fantasy?

Yes, that is certainly within the realm of possibility. But there is ample evidence to suggest that even during the limited period Lee was around Marguerite post-Russia, he rarely if ever spoke with her in detail about his own life and what he was doing at any given time.

13 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Marguerite still visited Lee at Mercedes, which encompassed the time frame of the 2 hour FBI interview in the car outside. So it's not a given that Marguerite fabricated the term "anti subversive". It could have come from Lee.

Mr. RANKIN. Did your mother-in-law come to see you at Mercedes Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Tony, once again, I never said she fabricated that SPECIFIC usage. I am trying to make the point that she was known to do so before and after the assassination, and that all three of her sons did not like spending time with her because of it, among many other reasons.